The Religious Aspects of Evolutionism

February 24, 2011

Many scientists say that neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism should be taught in public schools alongside the theory of evolution. Their argument is usually based on the claim that creationism is a ‘religious belief’ or some other such ‘unscientific’ belief. However, if that is the reason creationism is kept out of public schools, then evolution should not be taught there either. Evolution is, for the same reasons as Creationism/Intelligent Design, also a “religious belief”.

Both evolutionism and creationism rely on the same set of observable scientific facts at their disposal. Both of them also exercise faith (a belief in something not seen) in their respective explanations of the origin of man. The facts are identical; the ‘faith’ enters the picture when these facts are interpreted.

The process of evolution has not, and cannot, be observed in action: …insofar as any real proofs or unequivocal evidences go… (Basis for Modern Science, Henry M. Morris,Master Books, 2002, p.23)

Creationists obviously cannot observe creation either. In this respect, neither creationism nor evolutionism is scientific. No matter which explanation you believe, this is a fact and to deny it is intellectually dishonest. Simply put: none of us were there.

As Donald Chittick writes: It is well to note that naturalism (evolutionism) is not science; it is philosophy masquerading as science. The masquerade is exposed by noting that science has three attributes which show that naturalism is not science. In actual science it is necessary to observe. Obviously, the past cannot be observed. Scientists are only able to observe the universe as it exists in the present. In actual science it is necessary to repeat our observations. We cannot repeat the past to directly observe it. In actual science it is necessary to check observations for correctness by conducting further experiments. It is not possible to experiment on the past. Therefore, naturalism does not qualify as science but only masquerades as science. Naturalism is a belief about the past. (The Puzzle of Ancient Man, Donald E. Chittick, Ph.D., Creation Compass, 2006, p.31)

There is another issue that tends to complicate this discussion. Even if creation is true (and that is my belief), by its nature it is outside the realm of science: Creation was a one-time occurrence, a singularity. While science thrives on experimentation and repeatability, it cannot handle singularities. It has no way of studying things that happened only once in the past. Creation is simply outside the domain of science. (Bones of Contention, Marvin L. Lubenow, Baker Book House, 1992, p. 245)

This brings us to the issue of whether evolution or creationism should be taught in public schools. Either they both should be taught or neither of them should be. To teach one faith-based system of belief while omitting the other is dishonest. The alternative to teaching both ideas is to teach neither. Stick to science, defined by observable facts, and leave the philosophical speculations to other fields.

The scientific method, whether performed by evolutionists or creationists, is concerned with observable, falsifiable, repeatable, facts. When either group ventures outside these criteria, they enter the arena of philosophy, which by definition should not be taught as proven fact. Theists admit to a certain amount of faith concerning the unknown, should not evolutionists admit the same?